Community health agents, nurses and physicians conducting research in Brazil’s family health program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the integration of community-based providers within interprofessional health teams has been recommended by policymakers worldwide, there is limited research on how medical and community-based providers inform and participate in health research. Our study uses cross-sectional data from 169 Community Health Workers (CHWs), 62 nurses, and 31 physicians within Brazil's Family Health Strategy Program. Using an integrated framework of social cognitive theories and Theory for Planned Behavior, a reliable and valid instrument was developed to examine differences in past research involvement, and opinions about health and public health research (research efficacy and perceptions of research process). Descriptive frequencies and ANOVA F-tests were performed. Results indicated that CHWs has greater mistrust in the research process, and were not involved in substantive aspects of research (specification of aims, data collection, analysis, dissemination). Nurses compared to CHWs recruited participants to research studies, and had greater willingness to learn, participate and implement research initiatives. Physicians compared to CHWs and nurses developed survey instruments and disseminated research. For community-based and medical providers to be involved in all aspects of research, researchers ought to set up structured infrastructures of community collaborative boards. Furthermore, researchers can test our scale with other providers working within health teams globally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".